Olympus announces Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact

Olympus has announced the Stylus XZ-10 enthusiast compact - a smaller, cheaper addition to the range alongside the well-regarded XZ-2. It's built around a 26-130mm equivalent F1.8-2.7 lens, coupled with a 12MP 1/2.3" type backlit CMOS sensor that offers ISOs up to 6400 and sensor-shift image stabilization. It can record 1080p Full HD movies with stereo sound, with Multi-motion Movie IS to reduce blur while walking. The 3" 920k dot LCD is touch-sensitive, but unlike the XZ-2's doesn't tilt, which helps make the camera slimmer. The package is rounded off by a full set of manual controls including a customizable round-lens control ring, but there's no hot shoe or support for an external EVF. It'll be available from March 2013 for £349.99 in black, brown or white.

We'll have a chance to use a pre-production XZ-10 in the next few hours at the CP+ shot in Yokohama. We won't be able to post images, but we will be able to post first impressions.

London, 30 January 2013 – For photography enthusiasts looking for a high-end compact that delivers outstanding images even in low light, the game-changing STYLUS XZ range stands out from the rest. And now Olympus has made the range even stronger, with the addition of the slender STYLUS XZ-10. Even by XZ standards, the XZ-10 is extremely compact and light, but it is also extremely well equipped and boasts many of the features that make the flagship STYLUS XZ-2 such a remarkable camera. It has a super-bright 1:1.8-stop zoom lens, pro-style manual settings, ISO 6400, a 12-Megapixel backlit CMOS sensor and the powerful TruePic VI image processor used in the Olympus OM-D. The lens gives you 26mm* wide-angle flexibility, a 5x optical zoom and excellent 1:2.7-aperture brightness even at maximum zoom. The XZ-10 also boasts a host of clever feature upgrades such as 120fps high-speed HD movie recording and Photo Story, which lets you shoot a group of still photos with Art Filters straight into attractive, pre-prepared layouts that are ready for sharing without the need for more work on a computer. The XZ-10 offers an ideal combination of optical brilliance, pocket-sized design and the usability required to shoot and share every day on the fly. It will be available from late March 2013 for just £349.99, in black, brown or white.

A perfect 10

For people who like to carry their camera with them all the time, the STYLUS XZ-10 is the perfect high-end compact. It’s about 40% smaller by volume** than the classic STYLUS XZ-2, but still offers all the advantages of a super-bright, large-aperture i.ZUIKO DIGITAL 1:1.8-2.7 wide zoom lens that retains its brightness right across the zoom range. The XZ-10 delivers light-rich, 1.8 f-stop performance at a 26mm* wide angle and 1:2.7 at maximum 5x zoom. Together with ISO 6400 plus Olympus’ advanced iHS image processing and CMOS sensor technologies, this superb lens gives you new creative potential by expanding the range of shots you can take. From 1-cm macros to expansive landscapes and expressive portraits to inspirational mixed-light scenes, you can be confident of getting just the effect you have in mind. You can defocus the background to generate professional-looking bokeh. Or shoot blur-free images in difficult light without a tripod – by selecting a short exposure time and Handheld Starlight Mode with Flash. Even at high ISO settings, iHS technologies deliver low noise and radiant colours with crisp details and rich gradation in both dark and light parts of your shot.

Convenient customisation

Unlike most compacts, the XZ-10 lets you work your settings like a pro. Just like the STYLUS flagship XZ-2, it has a customisable control ring around the lens for adjusting key parameters manually, without taking your eye off your subject. Aperture, exposure time and program shift are some of the settings available via the control ring. Alternatively, for fast access to ISO or metering, you can assign these to the Fn button on the back of the camera to ensure quick, easy handling on the go.

Intuitive intelligence

On top of the manual settings, an array of practical features makes the XZ-10 one of the most intuitive high-end all-rounders to use. If you prefer to let electronics do more of the work, you might start with the 3-inch, quickresponse touch-sensitive LCD. With one tap of your finger, it can focus on fast-moving subjects and trigger your shot. Alternatively, simply switch on Live Guide or enhanced i-Auto. Transferring stills and 1080p Full HD movies is just as intuitive. The XZ-10 is FlashAir™ compatible so you can connect to your cloud or a social network website using your familiar smartphone interface and an optional FlashAir™ memory card.

Colour No.2 for the XZ-2

From February 2013, the award-winning STYLUS flagship XZ-2 will be available for the first time in white (as well as black), for £479.99. Professionals and ambitious hobby photographers appreciate the XZ-2 for its outstanding image quality that stems in part from its large 1/1.7” backlit CMOS sensor. It’s also popular for its full range of customisable manual controls and accessories, which are reminiscent of a system camera. The LCD on the XZ-2 is tiltable to help with shooting low down or above head height and it goes one better than the new XZ-10 with a digital/analogue customisable hybrid control ring. Like a system camera, the XZ-2 has an accessory port and is compatible with a wide range of dedicated add-ons that includes an external flash, electronic viewfinder, automatic lens cap, body jacket and a dedicated underwater housing.

Comments

Hi new member here. I really like this camera it hit's the features I want - low light lens, compact size, FlashAir compatible, etc. But no answer on whether it has a real USB port either mini or micro. I feel the time for proprietary AV/USB cables is over. If it has mini HDMI what more do you need? I want my USB chargers to work without having to carry a special cable just for the camera. anybody know yet?

I would really like an XZ-2 for myself, but I need to buy my wife a new camera. The price point, size, video capability and Oly jpgs will be great for her. RAW and manual controls will be great for me when I need to use it. It certainly will not replace my DSLR.

Extremely nice looking camera.Almost as nice as my S 95 - and I am afraid not half as nice when it comes to peeping the pixels. Thanks Oly for the design robbery and shame on you that you are stepping backwards - away from the enthusiast photographers.

p.s.cmon Canon - steal it back and make it a S120 with a 1/1.7 CCD sensor. This would make the camera a must have for everyone who wants to upgrade from a compact and the ones who are looking for a backup for their DSLR.

Luckily cameras are so generic that we still get a bit of copying and stealing without constant lawsuits a la Apple/Samsung. Without this we would be stuck in the dark ages paying a fortune for a simple camera.

Me too. According to the Olympus UK website the XZ-10 has a ND filter, see ‘Extra exposure control’ at the bottom of the following page:http://www.olympus.co.uk/site/en/c/cameras/digital_cameras/creator/xz_10/xz_10_features_l.html

I'm not saying "omg it's useless" - it still has a niche in that it's *much* cheaper than the rx100, and it's low light performance *after* you start zooming will probably be about the same because of it's better apertures when you zoom. And it costs half as much.

It's just (unfortunately) not as jeans-pocketable as an s100, and doesn't have the f1.4 performance of the lens on the lx7.

It seems to me like you're just using deliberately confusing language to be sensationalistic.

Depth of field is not the primary reason why people buy a compact with better aperture values. Better low light performance is. It is true that because of the sensor size differences, a dslr or larger sensored camera with an f1.8 lens will absolutely perform better than a compact with a an f1.8 lens. s100 vs "crop" dslr comparisons are usually around a 2 stop advantage to the dslr.

But this still does not change that you are getting better low light performance out of a compact with a better lens than you are out of a compact with a worse lens.

The secondary characteristic of aperture and sensor size is depth of field. However, "more depth of field" is a double edged sword in that it brings in as many problems as it provides advantages.

You gain the ability to blur the background more - but you also get one more factor that can go wrong in your photos and ruin them.

Hand a full frame camera to a an experienced user who's fiddling with all the settings, and you get beautifully blurred backgrounds.

Hand the same camera to someone just trying to take pics of their kids, or an experienced user who just wants to take pics without getting in their head about where exactly the depth of field and focus point is for each and every shot, and you end up with a lot of truly awful images where some people are in focus and others are not, or bizarre looking focus problems where edges of tables go from being in focus to looking unnaturally out of focus and blurry.

Having both wide apertures and a large sensor is like driving a car with a manual trasmission - if you're willing to pay attention to it *all the time*, it gives you more control, but if you don't want to constantly pay attention to it it will seriously screw things up.

I do love Timmbits completely pointless comparisons between entirely different types of cameras. Keep them coming Timmbits. We all need to be constantly reminded that enormous cameras perform better than tiny cameras.

Let me try a different way to explain why f/1.8 is a HUGE deal with any size sensor.

Example:

You are shooting ISO 400 test in same conditions and time. You have XZ-10 and D7000 with kit lens (ex. only, use any camera with kit lens, they usually start at 28mm and f/3.5) XZ-10 set @ 26mm at lowest f/1.8 had shutter speed of 1/30s.D7000 set @ 28mm at lowest f/3.5 had to use 1/8s.

I don’t know about you but at 1/30s I will get a sharp picture.On APS-C or even FF sensor shot at 1/8s not only I would have nicely blurred background (remember DoF) but also main subject.

You could use lower shutter speed on camera like XZ-10 to get sharp results because distance from the front of the lens to sensor will be shorter then the same distance on DSLR. When I used 35mm film SLR I learned that for every lens with X (mm) focal length I should use 1/Xs shutter speed to get sharp pictures. Why? 28mm lens was around 28mm in length (1/30s). 300mm lens around 300mm in length (1/250s or 1/500s).

You guys don't get it do you? FIRST, if you were even able to understand the link I sent, you would see that it allows you to also compare with a 1/17"! SECOND (@PaulRivers) pretty much ALL the current enthusiast compacts have a better lens than this (because with a 1/1.7" the lenses are larger, thus their f2 or f1.8 opening is larger), so there really is no currently produced compact enthusiast with a worse lens.THIRD:@all It's not just about DOF! Also relative brightness! ie: light gathering area of the sensor, coupled with the opening (this smaller lens divided by 1.8 in this case).FOURTH: @some of you (you know who you are), you are making EXACTLY the same mistake you made when you bought your Q10: drooling over something smaller and cheaper thinking it's better....AND FINALLY it was just an FYI so that neophytes who are reading your myopic comments can get some TRUE FACTS and and get a better understanding of the compromises versus, say, an LX7 for example.

@TOMEK: you are way out of your depth! on a APSC, you could have f6 as an equivalent to the f1.8 on a 1/2.3" sensor! And you could use a much much faster shutter speed on the APSC at f3.5 than on this one at f1.8.

We are looking at a lens that gathers as much light as on a FF sensor.It's just the DOF will be very different. Huge DOF with this small sensor...and Narrow DOF if this lens is in front of a FF sensor.

So light gathering principles are the same, regardless of sensor size. For these small sensored camera's, we would want faster glass, as that would keep the iso low, where the IQ is good....not so good once leaving base iso.

I'm a huge admirer and former user of Olympus FT but then Olympus should wonder why I now use a Nikon D7000 and Canon S100 to shoot street scenes instead of using mFT or an XZ. I need these photos for painting as a pro artist. These photos go to imaging and it's a giant task level less when perspectives match.

Regarding the XZ, I asked Olympus about selective zoom. It was "unavailable." Without it, images vary in perspectives and are less useful for composing. On the S and G series, Canon seems to have a grasp with selective lengths settings. And for the larger mFT camera, Olympus again seems too zoom oriented over primes. If they can't produce more normal length primes for mFT then I wish Olympus would, at least, be more sensitive to selective zoom control on XZ. Such a small compact can save the day without the larger camera with me but zoom fill bars and guessing isn't enough to meet the objective.

It is a regrettable omission in my view as well if there is really no step zooming function. As I have experienced with a Ricoh GX100 - and there are a few other well known models - this is of great value when practicing composition and perspective control.

I have a FT lens system and Nikon AIs and AF... and they'll all work, to an extent, with mFT along with the lenses you mention but this isn't relative to why Olympus omits XZ zoom control that Canon has on the S and G series. Too bad they haven't gone the extra inch but for me and my perspective control, zoom needs presets on XZ. If I appear to be overly expectant on such a small compact it's because I may not have the preferred camera with me at the moment of great opportunity... or desperation. Kind of like lifeboats when the ship is missing.

Same concern with sensor size. It's not that it is going to be bad in low light but in high contrast situations where highlights easily get blown and at a quality level similar to smartphones. Olympus should start installing larger sensors and I'm willing to accept vignetting, soft corners, CA at wide apertures.

I'm a big fan of the XZ-1 but to me there's imbalance using a compact camera sensor to a great, huge lens with manual controls. We know that there's a camera out there with a one inch sensor that is even more compact.

Since the XZ-2 uses a Sony sensor, I'm guessing the XZ-10 uses the same 12 mp BSI CMOS Sony sensor that the Pentax Q uses. I've owned the Q, and IQ in RAW is very good. Maybe not the same level of detail, or per-pixel sharpness of larger sensor compacts, but good IQ nonetheless.

But the XZ-10 looks like a capable camera with a well-done small case and hopefully good IQ. For this price, I'd prefer an MX-1 which is only slightly larger with a similar lens, but I have a fondness for retro cameras like the MX-1 and X20. Others may have different needs. That's why we have so many choices.

@artashes: don't forget that a "26mm equivalent" lens of a 1/2.3" camera is smaller than a 26mm equivalent lens of a 1/1.7" camera. thus the f1.8 opening is smaller too. do the math. it is not as bright as the current f1.8 - 1/1.7" lot - it's closer to the brightness of a f2.4 on a 1/1.7"

Timm,You do know this equivalence stuff has no effect on shutter speed right? 1.8 is 1.8 when you're exposing your shot. You will be using much lower ISOs. If you use the long end of the zoom at all, this will be on par with the rx100, and beat the s100.

I'm really not sure why you're obsessing about dof with point and shoots. It's a big deal with big sensors, but on these cameras it's really about keeping the ISO down in low light. You're not going to be getting many dreamy backgrounds in your portraits with these things, no- but that's not what they're intended for. Right tool for the right job..

A-Team:I am just working on my pics of a recent indoor-celebration. They came out quite nicely. And guess what: I used a compact with a flash!Only because you cannot imagine it, doesn't mean that it won't make sense!

The comparisons to the Canon S100 are really silly. This camera solves the biggest glaring problem of the S100, the slow lens. The XZ-10 is 2 1/3 stops faster at the long end (and 10mm longer). The S100 is already f/4 at only 50mm, more than a full stop slower than the XZ-10's slowest aperture. The lens more than makes up for the tiny difference in sensor size.

Don't talk about DOF. Both the S100's and XZ-10's tiny sensors have practically infinite DOF. If you are worried about DOF you are in the wrong market segment.

Still there are some similarities; both Canon and Olympus use a ring for settings. I think it's a good idea, I find it practical. Honestly I like Oly jpg files a bit better but I bet those will vary quite a bit from model to model.

You're right though, the S100 isn't in the same category. I don't think that is what Olympus were after with this offering.

I think many are rushing to judge without even waiting for a test. It's a bit surprising how a small cam can be polarizing when in effect it barely just came into existence.

Oly 1/2.3" , canon 1/1.7" , if something is silly then it's to compare f numbers of lenses without taking notice sensor sizes. As now you are trying to say is that this tiny tiny Oly lens are brighter than for example canons 70-200 mm f/2.8 L

I'm proud of Olympus for NOT going with a 16MP sensor. From what I've seen, the 12MP files from BSICMOS sensors are considerably better than the output from the 16MP BSICMOS sensors. It appears that in the bump from 12 to 16, the makers of the sensors have not made the improvements necessary to make the most of the added information, and the glass usually isn't up to snuff on compacts either.

It looks like quite a reasonable pocket P&S. Full manual settings and a customisable ring I have not had since the SP-570UZ 20x zoom bridge camera from 2008 (I still own it). The 12MP BSI CMOS sensor should be low on noise and artifacts. I hope the flash is an LED type. The one in my SZ-30MR is surprisingly powerful, and it does not annoy our cat.

A back-lit 1/2.3" sensor, in conjunction with a F1.8 - F2.7 aperture range, truly will offer better image and low-light results than the usual P&S camera. A $350 price is also a lot below the $650 wants for the RX100, or the circa $450 prices of various 1/1.7" sensor alternatives, which are also heavier or larger cameras.

Thus, the XZ-10 really does fill a particular niche in between other competitors, in terms of performance or price. The real question is whether people happy with phone cameras will bother to buy a P&S that performs a little better, though not enough for the usual Facebook viewer to notice. People who shop for a camera that does what a phone does not might not think in terms of aperture at all, but seek something with longer zoom or water resistance.

Question #2 is whether sales of the XZ-10 will improve Oly's overall sales volume, or simply cannibalize a share that would otherwise consist of XZ-2, Tough, or PEN cameras.

the rx100 is only at that price point, because they can get away with it... and because other manufacturers are not competing. if other manufacturers would offer more, the rx100 would be a lot cheaper.

Crew of photo enthusiast grouping together to pitch about P&S camera for not having big enough sensor. :DThis just a little brother of XZ-2 which is also an P&S camera. You know they sell these for the masses in the markets and online shops. By next quarter this will probably be 100 pucks cheaper. People who are looking for IQ and shallow DOF should not even bother comment this camera...And who here all ready know how good P&S IQ this cam has?

Why all the disappointment? It's just the little brother of the XZ-2. If they had pitched this as an RX100 competitor, moaning would have made sense, but that's not what it is. If it really does come in at $350 it will be a nice value.

the thing is, 1/2.3" sensor cameras go for $150 these days. it's gotten old a long time ago. and we are disappointed that manufacturers take us for fools when they try to put a marketing spin on something obsolete that just doesn't cut it anymore.

when labeling something "enthusiast compact" with RAW capabilities, it sort of sets the bar in terms of expectations.

The expectations I get from the label "enthusiast compact" are: RAW, PASM modes, more manual controls than a regular P&S, a (relatively) fast and sharp lens, and excellent build quality. I would add a hotshoe and a viewfinder, if pocketability weren't a concern, i.e. if we were talking about a larger camera.

Really, if a 1/1.7" sensor camera with the aforementioned features is an enthusiast compact, then surely a 1/2.3" sensor camera with the same features is also an enthusiast compact. The size difference between those sensors isn't that large, after all. Not so large, anyway, that it makes a significant difference in DoF control or IQ in real world use.

I could understand the disappointment, when Nikon marketed the P310 as an enthusiast compact, since it lacks RAW capabilities, but in the case of the XZ-10, I don't get it. If Canon S110 belongs to that category, then IMO so does this camera.

I just wanted to add that what I meant by no significant difference in my previous post, was that if DoF and ultimate IQ is your main concern, then you really shouldn't be looking at any of these small sensor cameras. You don't cross some magical line between 1/2.3" and 1/1.7", separating the ignorant masses from the real enthusiasts.

Anyway, I think that lens quality is a more important differentiator than sensor size, when comparing 1/1.7" and 1/2.3" sensor cameras.

This announcement is a big letdown. For once I wish even the biggest Olympus fanboys could admit that asking for a sensor to match the S90-95-100 etc. was not asking for much. 1/1.7 would have been nice.

"This announcement is a big letdown. For once I wish even the biggest Olympus fanboys could admit that asking for a sensor to match the S90-95-100 etc. was not asking for much. 1/1.7 would have been nice."

As you can see, the 1/2.3" sensor is better than 1/1.7" sensor in Canon S100, ISO 189 vs ISO 153. Technology matters more than such insignificant size difference. Now, if we are talking about 1" and higher, it is a different story.

Comparing one 1/2.3" sensor to the older S100 1/1.7" sensor and drawing conclusions for ALL 1/1.7" sensors may not be a best idea. DxOMark hasn't tested the newer Sony 1/1.7" BSI CMOS sensors found in the XZ-2, P7700 and G15.

Compare any Nikon P310 vs P7700 images or Pentax Q with MX-1 images, and you'll see the 1/1.7" sensor cameras with better per-pixel sharpness and detail.

And you don't even need to jump to a 1" sensor to get significant performance gains, as the 2/3" sensor from the Fuji X10 gives better high ISO performance than any compact except the RX100. You also get better DOF control than a 1/2.3" compact with a similar lens.

What is with people saying that fast apertures make up for small sensors? If I shoot at 1/60 f/5.6 (because those are the settings I want to shoot at) at ISO 800, a larger sensor should be better, right? Actually to match DOF, I will need a smaller aperture on a larger sensored camera.. so I guess I need to up the ISO... then what?

Hey Timm, lighten up. There are a few 1/2.3" sensor cameras around that do quite well up to ISO 800, and with the fast lens, that will seldom be needed. What cameras? Panasonic FZ150, FZ200, and ZS15, Canon SX230HS, SD4000IS, Pentax Q.

The Sony RX100 as a competitor isn't valid, as the street price in the USA will be 2:1. It won't sell unless it's under $300. The Canon S110 is valid as a competitor, and Olympus would seem to have chosen a faster lens to offset the larger sensor; but slower lens, of the S110. At full zoom, the XZ10 has a 2 stop advantage.

As far as DOF control, I think it's funny that what was considered a drawback 50 years ago is now touted as a feature. I started as a serious hobbyist in 1955, and somewhere along the way, "selective focus" became a new way to compose. For many situations, a large DOF is an advantage.

This camera is obviously not for you, and maybe not for me (I have an S90 and a G15); but I can see a number of valid uses for it.

I seriously cannot understand talking about a camera's telephoto capabilities when it's that damn small. Who shoots 100mm equivalent with a pocket camera? I don't understand this use case. I shoot my pocket camera of choice a lot, and it's almost always at it's widest setting. All these "faster than X" comments all talk about the tele end, which is completely useless. I wish the RX100 had a 28mm equiv prime on it sometimes just to stop these comments. I really could care less about tele on a compact.

As a tourist I've often wanted a pocketable camera with a longer zoom. I couldn't make details of buildings come closer (for one example.) Something like this would be very nice for travel, though many would find the zoom inadequate and buy a humongous superzoom instead.

It's funny how eager people are to crap on a camera like this, yet give the dozens of other lower-end cameras a pass. Don't get me wrong, this may be overpriced for what it is, but I don't think cameras like this are without their use. The Nikon P300 is what has gotten me interested in photography after years of seeing it as something out of my reach. For a long time, I wanted something more than a regular P&S, but didn't want to spend the money on a larger fixed lens or DSLR. If I couldn't keep it in my back pocket, I knew I'd end up not using it.

After a year with the P300, I'm looking for an upgrade- something with a larger sensor, something with RAW support, something with higher IQ, maybe something with bulb mode or at least longer exposures but still small enough to go with me on every hike in my back pocket. This has me seriously looking at the XZ-2 and RX100. There's absolutely zero chance I would have considered spending that kind of money without first having the P300.

True words. Cameras like this are really not without their use, especially not, when they have a bright, sharp zuiko lens.

this is a competitor for the canon s110, an it might be as good as well, especially on the long end it will beat the f5.9 on the 110.

Im also an owner of the nikon p300. I like the handling, feeling, controls, display and the the 1.8 lens.but the smearing and the lack of details (especially visible on skintones) really drives me crazy, if you just could control sharpening and noise reduction, it would be a very nice camera, but you can't..(my old Canon A590 makes better images as lower iso than the p300)

Maybe it's just for the ignorant mass-market... they can see f1.8 stamped on it, but they can't see "too small a sensor" written anywhere. It will sell because of this. To people who don't know about control over depth of field in photography, who have never attempted to take night shots, to name a couple of things.

I was just talking to someone yesterday who was thinking about upgrading her old 3MP camera, and when I mentioned sensor size, she asked me "what is a sensor"? To that person, I would say, get one of these... but then again, if you target that market, who cares about RAW?

This camera has 12-bit lossless RAW, and like any compact with a fast lens, you can get fairly shallow DOF if you get close enough to your subject like in this Q image:

http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/5543808958/photos/2203500/imgp0028

Just like the Pentax Q or Sony HX9V, the XZ-10 is not necessarily "for the ignorant mass-market" just because it has a 1/2.3" sensor. Price is one thing, but getting hung-up on sensor size BEFORE you've seen any imagesmay not make much sense.

with WHAT camera can you NOT get close enough to get a semblant of DoF? this is no special capability! and of course it is for the ignorant! when they have an XZ2, why else would they come out with this?

The XZ-10 significantly smaller and cheaper than an XZ-2, a $600 camera. It's not a question of "ignorant" or "in the know". For some, a small camera with a fast lens, and good enough IQ may make sense. It doesn't for me, but I wouldn't knock it based on sensor size, just as I wouldn't knock an X20 because it doesn't have a 1" or APS-C sensor. That's just silly. The average person isn't buying a P&S for beautiful bokeh shots or handheld night photography. They want pics of the kids, events, etc. For that, this camera looks more than adequate.

with a tiny 1/2.3"sensor, this might be good for my 7 y.o. child, to introduce her to photography... but surely anyone in their right mind wouldn't consider this over ANY of the already small 1/1.7" sensor cameras. I really don't see the point of the existence of this camera, if not for kids.

Do we need our compacts to match our DSLRs? I don't. It's the images that matter most not some competition for high ISO ability or shallow DOF. Sensor size experts and measurebators don't seem to get that more opportunities for good images with good IQ beat high quality bad images or non at all.

You wake up. For me, 1/1.7" is fine. My GRD III is one of the best cameras I've ever owned, just as 2/3" is fine, just as 1" is fine. Making good images has absolutely nothing to do sensor size. Zero. Most modern digital cameras have more than enough resolution, DR, with good colors for excellent quality prints and flickr galleries. Quoting sensor sizes and relative DOF is just something that camera geeks do to show how smart they are. To a certain point, it has NOTHING to do with actual photography.

Before everybody starts to complain about sensor size just check this sensor performance on the other compacts (Canon HS50, SX240)If it had 1/1.7 sensor it would have been bigger with same speed lenses (XZ-2 is that camera actually) or it would have the same size with slower lenses and you would lose all your IQ gain in low light !!!

G15 1.8 lens LX7 1.4 lens. Both use 1/1.7 sensor. That 50% larger surface area makes a significant difference. It costs more to manufacture not just the sensor but the lens. You start calling 1/2.3" sensored cameras enthusiast cameras... it's like trying to sell a 4 cylinder car as a 6 cylinder car.

Funny you quote Einstein and not realizing the quote may very well apply to your attitude because its in the end up to the photographers needs. It's the photographer who creates the photograph and cameras like these can provide a discreetness and price points that allow to acquire such tool that in the hands of those that need it and know photography can get good results of.

The whole small sensor=automatically useless meme has gotten quite old as professional photography done on an iPhone can attest to. Hint: that's even smaller than this sensor.

Raist, you have nice images, that you posted links to. Surely someone like you understands the concept of control over depth of field? Surely you have tried to take photographs at night? I don't see you doing either of those with your 1/2.3" to any level of satisfaction. With the existence of an XZ1, XZ2, and the other manufacturers' ones for the same price, what is the point of this camera anyways? Laws of physics is you will have nowhere the control over depth of field as in the others that have a 1/1.7", 2/3", with f1.8 or f1.4 lens, nowhere the night mode results of a Nikon p7700... SURELY someone of your caliber understands all that!

Here's what you need to understand: - DOF control is not just being able to do shallow DOF. Maybe you want a lot of depth. There are photographers that want this. This means these cameras can be a match for them- even if they are not for you!Here is a good photography article on that:http://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2012/06/in-defense-of-depth.html

What you need to understand is that there are pros and cons in everything. Just because something does not meet your needs does not mean it may not work for someone else. As a point of example: the Q allows me to be very discreet for street life and literally wear the camera. I have a K-5 which is amazing/outstanding in low light and tonality but I don't carry it or wear it with me.

Oh and you bet if I pull out a K-5 (even though that's small for a DSLR) I will bring more attention to myself as a street photographer than a Q. A Nikon D3/D4 can be great, but it's not a tank I want to carry around. It all depends what you are trying to do as a photographer. Do not write these cameras as useless blindly based on a sensor size or just because they do not work for you.

If you can't fathom a use for them at least for someone else, you have to ask yourself if your focus is too much on gear and not photography. Just imho of course.

@Raist3di registered to say your pictures are very nice especially the high ISO ones and wonder if all those are by the pentax Q. i have done some research on the Q and didn't find much. i may search the wrong place, anyway, nice pictures!

@Xue24 - thanks. Yes, all of those are 100% with a Pentax Q. They are also 100% by me :-) I converted from RAW, LR 4.xx. You may want to check the Pentax forum here (non DSLR).You can download the jpegs and check the Exif too. Show the lens used, etc.

@Raist3d - thanks for the lead as i just manage to check on yours and others work on that forum. learn a great deal about Q and small size sensor. will stay close with the forum for all the great works, thanks!

When I first saw that Olympus was going to release the X-10 I had wrongly disparaged the fact that it would be a very small sensor with no RAW capabilities. So it is with much delight to observe that they've elected to add a RAW mode which really contributes to better IQ capabilities.

If they had released this cam without RAW, it would have been a different story.

So short of going the 1/1.7" sensor route, this XZ-10 could be Olympus's foray into the market that the Canon S folks once ruled (and I have an S100). Let's see how the IQ pans out. The lens and zoom factor are a step above, that's for sure.

So despite my initial misgivings about the XZ-10 (especially with Oly's previous history of P&S cams that had a massive amount of JPG compression), releasing this new enthusiast model with RAW capabilities is a step in the right direction. I'm so glad to see Olympus back in the enthusiasts market with a vengeance.

@Timmbits,If you shoot portraits I understand your quest of DoF control.But do people mainly shoot portraits ? At least, not me... I shoot landscapes and macros and I need deep DoF. Moreover deep DoF compensates for focusing inaccuracies.I have just bought an XZ-1 with, as you know, a bigger sensor than the XZ-10 one. I was happy to see that shoots at 28mm equiv. / F:1.8 still have big DoF ! Why ? Because I can shoot landscapes in low light without the need to stop down and increase ISO or use a tripod. You cannot do this with an APS-C or bigger sensor without at least OIS.I was also happy (and disappointed too...) to see that the XZ-1 lens is sharper on image borders than my Canon EF-S 18-55mm IS and Pentax DA 18-55mm AL WR lenses at widest angle / full aperture and low ISO on bodies with more megapixels than the XZ-1 !

I thought "Wow, this looks like a worthy alternative to the RX100-- wider angle, more zoom, brighter lens at tele," until I got to the sensor size. What was Olympus thinking in not doing at least a 1/1.7' sensor? I suspect that the users this camera is aimed at (digitally informed, not invested in the megapixel race, interested in RAW formats and manual options) will notice that "feature," and be unimpressed. It seems short sighted on Olympus' part.

Go and check Canon SX50 HS sensor scores at DXO which has probably the same 1/2.3 sensor, compare the charts to Canon S110 sensor ones and then I think you will better understand why they put this sensor : you can have brighter lenses with same size of S110

PS why complain about sensor size if sensor doing a great job being small ?

With current sensor technology, there is negligeable difference between 1/1.7 and 1/2.3 sensors until ISO400. Upwards the former takes the lead clearly. So with this fast lens, Olympus is giving another compromise: smaller sensor but fast all the way and yet pocketable. it does have a market.

I don't have dual profiles here. No, I don't believe the comment applies to me but that's irrelevant to the point. The point is you are the one who is making the call, and you would think you would be clearly not in the category you are describing.

Hmm, after a quick look at this and the price suggested, I think Olympus would have been better on doing an "epm" version of the larger XZ's to this type of price, or better yet, putting a fixed retracting lens onto the 16mpx mFT sensor, perhaps at a crop to a smaller mpx ( as some panasonic mFT's actually do)

It looks like you may not have an accurate notion of the 4/3 sensor area. Even Sony RX100's sensor is smaller than 4/3. It would be impossible to mount it in such small body - not to mention it would be more expensive. And what would be the point of offering a point-and-shoot-sized mirrorless camera when there's already the E-PM2? This XZ10 is strictly a point-and-shoot, intended for a vastly different consumer target.Of course, you may argue there are the Sigmas, but they're much bulkier and each one is confined to a single focal length.

Indeed, that is definitely a discussion under a different product. the reason why the RX100 gets a smaller aperture at full zoom, is because otherwise, you would have too much chromatic aberration... a design compromise they had to make, in order to cram a sensor and lens that size, into such a small package. with MFT, the compromises would be even more severe, so it wouldn't make any sense to even attempt it. However, what WOULD be nice, is to see an MFT competitor to the Nikon-1 system's space, with a fixed lens (sort of like a slightly larger RX100, from Panasonic or Olympus), would make lots of sense. But you know WHY they won't do it? Because no one would buy their interchangeable lens MFT cameras anymore, their revenues would plummet, and they will have engineered themselves out of business (especially Olympus, with their already precarious position).

Timmbits, MFT is head and shoulders above Nikon 1 system. Olympus and Panasonic need not compete with a stillborn system that is inferior in every respect. You seem to have failed to grasp micro 4/3's purpose, which is to offer near DSLR-like image quality in a small package.

@MANUEL: either you misunderstood me, or I am a poor communicator... regardless, I was only expanding on what you were saying. I was trying to explain WHY the rx100 has certain design limitations (which come from a 1" sensor in such a small package) - like f4.9 at tele, and these design decisions would have to be even stricter if we thought of putting an even larger sensor into such a small package, hence why they couldn't hope to put an mft into the rx100's size. AND... I was also trying to say, that it WOULD be nice if there WAS a fixed lens MFT camera, to oust the impertinent Nikon-1 out of it's space... An aps-c would be a bit too large for us to wish for that... but an MFT might be a feasible possibility.But again, this is beyond the scope of the discussion under the xz10. ;)

This camera would be interesting if Panasonic hadn't been dumping their LX7s for $279 lately. It is just like when your neighbor dumps his house for half of what it is worth and now no one else can sell theirs.

I have seen websites that promise an item at a price but then do not deliver... or they have sales reps that are supposed to upsell you, or tell you there is no more stock if you don't order high margin add-ons. there are even phishing websites out there that come up in searches, promising a certain price, but have no inventory.... and you only find out after you created an account with them and left information... So that is why I was asking... is there a legitimate site selling these at this price point? btw, I doubt they can make it for less in turkey than in china (which isn't a reference either btw).

If I look at this camera in context of other p&s compacts with 1/2,3" sensors, I have to praise Olympus for releasing such camera: super-bright lens, RAW, PASM modes, this is something most competitors miss.However when I look at enthusiast comapcts with 1/1,7" sensors, most of them offer the same, with bigger sensor and for similar price (no need to go further than to Oly XZ-1). So in this contet the camera seems pointless.

@Sadwitch- Are masterpieces a prerequisite for a photograph by law? If so, is every photograph you take a masterpiece?

How about "good enough" comes to mind, without aid of a flash. Indoors, 3200 is almost the bare minimum even for a fast aperture in most households if you want to make an image of anything moving without blur and no flash.

Sensor size 1/2.3" (6.17 x 4.55 mm), in a package the same size as an RX100. Wow Olympus, revolutionary camera here. I mean it's not like there's a shortage of $350 1/1.7" cameras around. This lens is barely brighter than the S110 at tele, and considerably darker at wide.

I can't believe anybody with a brain would compare a lens covering a 1/2.33" sensor to one covering a 1" sensor based solely on f-stop. In equivalent aperture, the RX100 is faster at tele and twice as fast at wide (it's a compact, wide is all that matters).

And I didn't just compare it to an RX100. I also compared it to the plethora of 1/1.7" cameras on the market at that pricepoint which deliver better light gathering.

need a side-by-side pic with XZ-2 (or 1) to see how MUCH smaller/thinner it is. Is the extra pocketability worth the hit in sensor size / IQ. (I think hotshoe doesn't matter, since there's wireless TTL... just get a FL-300r)